the educational responsibility and institutional mission in relationship to the American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut. These three roles-educational, interpretive and coordinating-would be consistent with the tone of the legislation and the position of the NACOR.

The next category is concerns of NACOR.

Concerns. The basic weaknesses of S. 2166 are in the areas of implementation. The Institute of American Indian Arts, which is the foundation for the National Institute of Native American Culture and Arts Development, is being institutionally and bureaucratically assaulted from every aspect. Under the present circumstances of mismanagement and benign neglect by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the educational survival of the Institute of American Indian Arts is of grave concern to the NACOR.

This puts an extraordinary burden on the regents in defining their position on the bill because of the necessity to consider both the untenable present situation of the Institute of American Indian Arts and the future possibilities of the National Institute of Native American Culture and Arts Development. Nevertheless, the NACOR has made every attempt to be as objective as possible, considering their present role.

With this possible bias and ambivalence in mind, the NACOR's wish to present their concerns of S. 2166 under the following seven

areas.

No. 1. Definition of terms: The definition of Indian or native American is ambiguous. (section 3, page 3, item 3, lines 1-4. Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos have a unique status under treaties, laws, Executive orders, customs, traditions, and Supreme Court and other judicatory rulings. The term aboriginal inhabitant of the United States is so broad that it would include tribes not recognized by the Federal Government and it could include individuals who are not recognized by any existing Indian, Aleut, or Eskimo group.

Recommendation: The NACOR recommends then that the present definition of Indian and native American now used by the IAIA be the definition that is used to define Indian and native American under S. 2166.

The second concern is property rights and the concerns are these— (section 4, page 7, item M, lines 20-25 and section 4, page 8, item M, lines 1-5.)

Concerns: In these designated lines, it is difficult for the NACOR to determine what are the properties and the rights of property of the to-be-created Institute of Native American Culture and Arts Development. That is, what are the investments and endowments of the Institute of Native American Culture and Arts Development? It is also difficult to tell if the newly created Institute has the right to sue and be sued; to own, acquire, sell, mortgage, or otherwise dispose of property it may own or hereafter acquire; and to own and maintain unique properties such as a stock of restricted bird and animal parts under the endangered species category for now and in the future. Directly related to "what are the properties and the rights of property" is the difficulty in understanding the role and responsibility of the board of trustees in the management of the property and property rights. It is not clear if the board of trustees, as trustee, can convey fee simple title by deed, convey by quitclaim deed, mort

gage or otherwise dispose of any or all property, title to which is vested in the United States for the sole use of the Institute of Native American Cultural and Arts Development.

A further concern in relation to property rights is the question of the trustee role of the Institute in relation to art, artifacts, artists and craftsmen, individual trusts and investments.

Recommendation: The NACOR recommends that the property and property rights be clarified in terms of the Institute, the board of trustees, and special considerations such as past acts, investment purposes and acquisitions of art. The regents further recommend that a provisional clause be in the law that says:

That the proceeds of any such disposition (of property as defined) shall be considered a part of the capital structure of the institute and may be used solely for the acquisition of real estate for the use of the institute, for the construction, equipment, or improvement of buildings for such use, or for investment purposes; but if invested, only the income from the investment may be used for current expenses of the institute.

The next area of concern is board of trustees.

There are three concerns to be considered under this category. The first concern is about the membership of the Board of Trustees. The regents' position is that the public and nonpublic status should be clearly defined.

The second concern is with the appointing role of the President of the United States in relation to both the public and nonpublic members of the board of trustees. There seems to be the possibility of inconvenient delays in conducting business when all appointments of both public and nonpublic members are from the President of the United States.

Under S. 2166, the Indian Arts and Crafts Board and the NACOR are not considered. The regents feel that a considerable body of knowledge regarding the role of boards of trustees in the arts and cultural area is not used when these two groups are ignored in the formation of the board of trustees. Both of these bodies have invested many years of activity in developing and maintaining the Institute of American Indian Arts.

Recommendations: No. 1. Seven public members of whom one shall be a U.S. Senator appointed by the President of the Senate; two shall be Representatives appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives; one shall be the Secretary of the Interior, or his designee; one shall be Chairman, National Endowment of the Arts, or his designee; one shall be the Chairman, National Endowment of the Humanities or his designee; and one shall either be the president of the World Craft Council, or his designee, or shall be from an appropriate office of the Cultural Affairs Office of UNESCO.

No. 2. Twelve other members, six of whom shall be elected by the NACOR in accordance with the cultural area and tribal representation, five of whom shall be elected by the Indian Arts and Crafts Board, and one of whom shall be elected pursuant to regulations of the board of trustees on nominations by the Institute of American Indian Arts alumni for a term of 3 years.

The public members of the board of trustees shall be appointed for a term of 2 years at the beginning of each Congress, shall be eligible for reappointment, and shall serve until their successors are appointed. The board of trustees shall have the power to fill any vacancy in the

membership of the board except for public members. A majority of the board of trustees shall be a quorum to transact business. The said board of trustees, by a vote of the majority of membership, shall have power to remove any member of their body, except the public members, who may refuse or neglect to discharge the duties of a director, or whose removal would, in the judgment of said majority, be to the interest and welfare of said entity.

The next area of concern is the powers of the board of trustees. The basic concern of the NACOR is that the powers of the board are not either clearly designated or the powers are delegated to roles such as the chairman of the board of trustees and the president of the Institute and not to the board of trustees as the final authority.

It seems to the regents that the powers should be vested in the board of trustees and the responsibility for carrying out the directives and wishes of the board of trustees are to be assumed by the chairman of the board of trustees and the president of the institute. Otherwise, there is too much power and responsibility given to two people.

A concern related to the powers of the board of trustees is that the NACOR finds that important and needed powers are not given to the board of trustees; therefore, the recommendations are these.

Recommendations: No. 1. Section 4, page 5(f) line 15: The words "in consultation" be changed to "at the direction of the board of trustees or in accordance with the wishes and decisions of the board of trustees." There needs to be a stronger language than mere consultation.

No. 2. It should be made clear that the president of the institute is an administrator, responsible to the board and that the board determines policy and function. The president of the institute is an ex-officio member of the board.

No. 3. The power of the board of trustees in relation to admission, instruction, care, and discharge of students needs should be more specific and legally defined.

No. 4. The power to confer such degrees and marks of honor as are conferred by colleges and universities generally, and issue such diplomas and certification of graduation as, in its opinion, may be deemed advisable, and consistent with its academic standards.

No. 5. The power to invest income sources, other than appropriations by Congress.

The next category is: Responsibilities of the board of trustees. For the interest of the public and the credibility of the institute, there are two important areas that are not considered in S. 2166. Since the regents have had considerable difficulty with the BIA in getting data in these areas, the NACOR wishes to be sure there is a prescribed manner of settlement of accounts and a prescribed manner of detailed annual reporting.

Therefore, the Recommendations are: No. 1. All financial records shall be settled and adjusted in the General Accounting Office.

No. 2. The institute be required to make annual reports to Congress. The third area is problems of transition. There is much anxiety among the regents regarding the transition period. The areas of con

cern are:

No. 1. The time factor is critical. Due to the BIA-imposed constraints of shared space, of limited student recruitment, of a hostile educational environment, and of a prolonged period of stress on the

faculty and students, the NACOR is highly desirous of moving with speed. At the same time, the regents must consider the institute as an institute of the future as well as an institute for the present.

No. 2. There is no stated site in S. 2166. There are data from the friends of the institute in Santa Fe, from the Zuni, and from the Navajo, that do indicate that Santa Fe is an appropriate culture and arts area, but the regents want greater confirmation from the State of New Mexico and the various communities of New Mexico that they want the institute and are willing to support and be loyal to such a unique institute. This institute is to be national and international in scope and the regents are reluctant to recommend subjecting the faculty and student body to further stress and hostility. Faculty are to teach and students are to learn. Far too long, IAIA faculty and IAIA student body have been fighting for the right to teach and learn, fighting for a place to teach and learn, and fighting for the time to learn and teach.

No. 3. The regents wish to comment on the appropriation: Section 8. It is impossible to carry out the purposes of S. 2166 with a $4 million appropriation.

With these concerns in mind, the NACOR makes the following recommendation:

That the time factor of transition and the appropriation be related to definite phases of accomplishment of the purposes of the act. The first year of operation of the new institute should be a time of both board and institutional organization.

The final concern of the regents is there is no disclaimer clause. Our recommendation, therefore is: All other laws and parts of laws or of the charters heretofore granted, as amended, which are in conflict with this act, are hereby repealed.

Thank you.

Senator MELCHER. Thank you very much, Helen, for a very constructive and detailed set of recommendations on the bill. It is this type of testimony that is extremely helpful to the committee in refining the bill before us. So we are very much indebted to you and to the rest of the regents, and I can assure you that we will take your recommendations very seriously into consideration as we move forward with the bill.

Senator Domenici.

Senator DOMENICI. I, too, want to congratulate you for your analysis. I think you have raised some very good points, not only technical and legal in nature, but the thrust of your concern about the past are excellent, in my opinion.

I think you have been extremely generous when you talk about the benign neglect that has occurred in years past, with reference to the Indian Arts Institute. I think everyone has seen the results of that. You saw them. They existed. It was deplorable that this institute, from an early start, the one we are speaking of, not the thrust of Indian culture and arts under Senator Melcher's bill, but that this institute that started off with such a glorious goal and such a commitment ended up in the condition that it was last year and the year before that and the year before that.

Now, on the last page, you indicate that Santa Fe is the appropriate site for an institute that would be related to Senator Melcher's bill, which has much broader scope than just an institute. I wholeheartedly agree with you that Santa Fe is the appropriate place.

But then you proceed to say that there has to be a confirmation of a commitment, you say, on the part of the State of New Mexico and various communities, that they want the institute and are willing to support it. I hope that that statement did not intend to say that the past failure, of the so-called benign neglect that caused the institute to go to the low state that it was in, was not because of lack of local commitment. Did you intend that? I mean in the past. I am not talking about the future.

Dr. REDBIRD. I clarified that because the only data that the regents have in relation to support for the Institute of American Indian Art in this area has come from the organization of the Friends of the Institute in Sante Fe and from the Zuni and from the Navajo.

The press has not been friendly. I have to say with some concern that it has not always been possible to get a hearing in New Mexico, that there has not always been a warm reception in relation to our concerns from the New Mexico legislature. It has been necessary, sometimes, to go there when we would feel that that is unnecessary. So we do have some concerns about the environment in New Mexico.

At the same time, we recognize that it is a unique cultural setting. It is an area that has fostered and developed many outstanding Indian and non-Indian artists and the regents are concerned with: What are the possibilities of economic development, arts development? What are the potential of relationships into land sites? What changes are going to happen in demographic data in the State of New Mexico?

All of those things are of concern and so we are still very much open to look at the data. But we are data oriented and that is why the statement is in there in the way that it is.

Our data do indicate it has been a hostile environment.

Senator DOMENICI. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that is absolutely untrue. If one wants to trace the failure of this Institute and wants to pin the blame on anyone-and I do this reluctantly-but I am going to say, to place an Institute such as this, postgraduate in nature, under a Bureau of Indian Affairs and then to expect them basically to run it with the kinds of difficulties that you have in the postgraduate education, it is doomed to failure.

The only reason it succeeded for the first few years was because it had the full thrust of a Presidential endorsement. It was promised by Senator Kennedy and it was created in that manner with a lot of national significance, and then in the typical fashion, it was turned over to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and they are here. They know of my great respect for them, but they know that it is almost impossible for a Bureau of Indian Affairs, with the kind of management skills they have developed over the years, to run a postgraduate institute in arts and culture.

And I think that while I greatly respect our visiting witness and her organization, I do not believe the lack of support in New Mexico has played a significant role in the failure of this Institute to succeed. Perhaps it will become irrelevant because if we can get your bill passed, we will have a completely different thrust in terms of policymaking, assistance in terms of how it should be run from the board of trustees and, hopefully, they will have some of the views of the regents as to how you run an institution.